You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
1
zk3hf9dB on scored.co
8 days ago1 point(+0/-0/+1Score on mirror)1 child
> help me out
OK
> jews
When you read the Bible and see the word "jew" it can mean multiple things.
1. "Judahite" -- literal descendant of Judah. In the Bible, there are only a few people who are literally a descendant of Judah, Jesus being one of them.
2. "Judean" -- literal inhabitant of the province of Judea. These include people who are not descended from Judah or Israel at all.
3. "Followers of Moses Law" -- remember Judaism (the religion) won't be invented for another 400 years.
4. The political leadership of the Judeans at the time, specifically the Pharisees, Sadducees and the Sanhedrin.
Most of the time the word "jew" means #2 or #3. Rarely it means #1. The passages you cite refer to #4. "Fear of the jews" was really "fear of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Sanhedrin".
In the modern day, "jew" means something completely different. It can refer to people descended (supposedly) from Judah, sure. It can also refer to followers of Judaism, the fake religion that was invented in Babylon as an amalgamation of the Mosaic Law plus Canaanite corruption.
On people supposedly descended from Judah -- no one alive today can claim that they know for a fact that they are, since the Romans intentionally burned all those records when they burned Jerusalem.
> Pharisees resemble modern jews
Not by a long shot. Modern jews have incorporated ancient Canaanite worship into their modern practices. The Pharisees, as far as we know, were actually following the Mosaic Law, plus some things they invented. There is a suggestion in some places that they were secretly committing adultery, but that could've just been a few individuals and not the entire sect.
The problem that Jesus had with the Pharisees is that they had no authority. At least the Sadducees were descended from temple priests and thus had a right to determine certain things. The Pharisees literally came out of nowhere and made up their own interpretation of the scriptures. They are closer to modern-day protestants than anything else I can think of.
> Jesus' lineage
So, anciently, and I mean very very anciently (Abraham and Moses' time) inheritance of authority came through the mother. Mary, being a descendant of Judah and David (and keep in mind David was descended from a Moabite -- see Ruth) she was likely, according to some theories, capable of producing an actual heir who could claim to be a king of the jews. The fact that Joseph was also a descendant of David certainly helped make the case that Jesus was the literal heir to the throne. That was what Matthew was trying to explain: Not only was Jesus a spiritual Messiah, but also a physical one who could claim the throne.
Hence, the weird dialogue that Jesus and Pilate have. Pilate wasn't opposed to Jesus declaring himself as king. After all, the current claimant was literally insane (the son of Herod) and Rome needed someone who could rule the jews and keep them from rebelling every 5 seconds. Jesus was literally the man that could've saved the province of Judea and brought peace to the empire at the same time. Unfortunately, as is explained in the dialogue, Jesus wasn't interested in claiming the earthly crown and all but told Pilate that he had to die to fulfill prophecy.
After Jesus was killed, the Romans put the province of Judea under the control of the king of Syria IIRC. After the rebellion of Jerusalem they renamed it "Palestine", referring to the Philistines who used to run the area before the Israelites showed up. They basically wiped the kingdom of Judah off the map never to return.
>On people supposedly descended from Judah -- no one alive today can claim that they know for a fact that they are, since the Romans intentionally burned all those records when they burned Jerusalem.
This might be what my friend meant when he claimed the jews are extinct or no longer survive as far as we know.
OK
> jews
When you read the Bible and see the word "jew" it can mean multiple things.
1. "Judahite" -- literal descendant of Judah. In the Bible, there are only a few people who are literally a descendant of Judah, Jesus being one of them.
2. "Judean" -- literal inhabitant of the province of Judea. These include people who are not descended from Judah or Israel at all.
3. "Followers of Moses Law" -- remember Judaism (the religion) won't be invented for another 400 years.
4. The political leadership of the Judeans at the time, specifically the Pharisees, Sadducees and the Sanhedrin.
Most of the time the word "jew" means #2 or #3. Rarely it means #1. The passages you cite refer to #4. "Fear of the jews" was really "fear of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Sanhedrin".
In the modern day, "jew" means something completely different. It can refer to people descended (supposedly) from Judah, sure. It can also refer to followers of Judaism, the fake religion that was invented in Babylon as an amalgamation of the Mosaic Law plus Canaanite corruption.
On people supposedly descended from Judah -- no one alive today can claim that they know for a fact that they are, since the Romans intentionally burned all those records when they burned Jerusalem.
> Pharisees resemble modern jews
Not by a long shot. Modern jews have incorporated ancient Canaanite worship into their modern practices. The Pharisees, as far as we know, were actually following the Mosaic Law, plus some things they invented. There is a suggestion in some places that they were secretly committing adultery, but that could've just been a few individuals and not the entire sect.
The problem that Jesus had with the Pharisees is that they had no authority. At least the Sadducees were descended from temple priests and thus had a right to determine certain things. The Pharisees literally came out of nowhere and made up their own interpretation of the scriptures. They are closer to modern-day protestants than anything else I can think of.
> Jesus' lineage
So, anciently, and I mean very very anciently (Abraham and Moses' time) inheritance of authority came through the mother. Mary, being a descendant of Judah and David (and keep in mind David was descended from a Moabite -- see Ruth) she was likely, according to some theories, capable of producing an actual heir who could claim to be a king of the jews. The fact that Joseph was also a descendant of David certainly helped make the case that Jesus was the literal heir to the throne. That was what Matthew was trying to explain: Not only was Jesus a spiritual Messiah, but also a physical one who could claim the throne.
Hence, the weird dialogue that Jesus and Pilate have. Pilate wasn't opposed to Jesus declaring himself as king. After all, the current claimant was literally insane (the son of Herod) and Rome needed someone who could rule the jews and keep them from rebelling every 5 seconds. Jesus was literally the man that could've saved the province of Judea and brought peace to the empire at the same time. Unfortunately, as is explained in the dialogue, Jesus wasn't interested in claiming the earthly crown and all but told Pilate that he had to die to fulfill prophecy.
After Jesus was killed, the Romans put the province of Judea under the control of the king of Syria IIRC. After the rebellion of Jerusalem they renamed it "Palestine", referring to the Philistines who used to run the area before the Israelites showed up. They basically wiped the kingdom of Judah off the map never to return.
>On people supposedly descended from Judah -- no one alive today can claim that they know for a fact that they are, since the Romans intentionally burned all those records when they burned Jerusalem.
This might be what my friend meant when he claimed the jews are extinct or no longer survive as far as we know.